Sicarius
Posts: 180
Joined: 2/26/2007
From: New Orleans
Status: offline
|
Zensee,
I want to begin my response to you by first thanking you for the tone and clarity of your words.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zensee
My views are often ideological, true. Surely Pulpsmack's are as well. I have also allowed that there is a compromise position between the outright banning of guns and the totally unregulated model which Pulp seems to advocate. Perhaps I have misunderstood him but I have asked him the practical question and hope he will clarify his position.
I cannot speak for him, and so I will wait to see how the two of you approach that conversation. As for myself, I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I believe that to an extent, tragedy is permissable in the interest of the greater good. I believe that most human beings are good, and therefore I believe that more firearms in more hands would by virtue of that belief be guns on the side of good -- working in the interest of what is "good." I will admit that I tend to lean toward an unregulated model, though I freely admit that there are flaws in its conception, as with anything. The states of Vermont and Alaska are basically unregulated, and as several others have pointed out they commonly rank among the safest of states in the country. I believe that moving toward an unregulated federal system would come with cost, but my personal belief is that this cost is both mitigated and worthwhile.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zensee
There is no simple answer to this. Ideologically and ideally we (kinky folk) should embrace all forms of liberty, without question. But that is an impractical expectation and imposes blanket agreement with any terms anyone wants to present to the community. Anyway, our liberty is moderated by the SSC principle (or some similar line in the sand).
I understand your point of view on the subject. I do not necessarily believe that it mandates a blanket acceptance of any terms that any individual would wish to impose, however. For one, I have nothing against groups of citizens existing in this country that select to live by their own self-imposed standards of gun control, much as our community regulates itself in the interest of what we feel is best for ourselves. The inherent difference, as I perceive it, is that our community is flexible. Say, for example, that it became the consensus of our community to oppose the fetish of knife play because of its inherent undertones and danger. We have no means of actually "punishing" anyone who chooses to step away from the community because of their disagreement. Certainly I have the option of becoming a criminal in my own country by disregarding its laws, but I am certain that you will agree that any perception of "consequence" is much greater in the latter model ... at the deprivation of my own personal interests and freedoms.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zensee
We do not act in isolation and we all know that part of the price for our liberty is not rubbing other people’s noses in it with public displays. We accept that our freedom is not practicable everywhere at all times. As appealing a fantasy as it might be, I can’t strip my girl naked, beat her and sodomise her in the produce section – not without negative consequences.
I still believe that laws against disturbing the peace are perfectly acceptable. Furthermore, I do not believe that any responsible gun owner wishes to rub anyone's nose in their liberty to possess one. You will usually find that in most cases, gun advocates are nonconfrontational people. We are usually very quiet, minding our own business until someone butts their head into our world without understanding and seeks to deprive us of our freedoms. Getting back to the original point, if some psychopath wants to walk down the street with a bandoleer of ammunition wrapped around his body brandishing an assault rifle -- by all means, arrest him. It is not his ownership of the weapon or the ammunition that distresses me, but instead his obvious disregard for maintaining the peace and comfort of his fellow citizens.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zensee
While many things we do, have been, still are or could again be illegal, that in itself is not justification for deregulating anything and everything nor does it oblige us to endorse behaviours we feel are dangerous or simply disagree with.
I don't really "hate" anyone who opposes the ownership of weapons. I realize that they are afraid and that they believe they are acting in the interest of their protection. Obviously this argument does have its flexibility ... no, I do not believe that every individual should have a legal right to own a nuclear bomb. I do believe that firearms (or at least the majority of them) exist in such a domain of use that they effect targeted individuals, however, where as a bomb shows no signs of discretion ... I believe that is the primary reason why I view the two differently. With the exception of accidents involving firearms (and fatal accidents can be attributed to nearly anything in this world), anyone who is killing someone with a gun is making a very conscious decision to do so. He is capable of acting in the interest of good with it ... and I do not believe that this is necessarily true of all tools, such as nuclear weapons. I don't see what an individual could do with one that could serve the interest of the greater good.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zensee
SSC is a personal code but it is also a community standard – i.e. law. All our interactions are regulated in some way – we are social creatures. That responsibility does not evaporate just because guns are the topic. If anything there is an added burden of responsibility on the gun owner, and not just for themselves.
Yes, but you see, Pulpsmack and myself are arguing in favor of individual liberties rather than broad and sweeping legislation that cannot be argued. We are not saying that a private community should not have the right to ban weapons from entering its privately owned domain. I fully respect a store owner's discretion in deciding whether or not to permit a weapon into his place of business ... and by the same token, I can in turn choose whether or not I wish to shop there. Safe, Sane, Consensual is an important community standard and one that we certainly should attempt to pass on to all we educate ... but is it really "enforceable" in any sense? That is the difference that I see between it and a law.
-Sicarius
< Message edited by Sicarius -- 5/2/2007 4:10:24 PM >
_____________________________
"All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; ... Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him." -Sun Tzu, "The Art of War"
|
RE: Meatcleaver, Guns, & America - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread